Unintended consequence of Mr. Burke's not trusting the individual to rely on his private stock of reasoning. What alternative, Herr Burke? Oh, experts, huh. Say hello to the story above - your reasoning leads in direct path to its doorstep.

The worship of experts, the bowing before authority. These are good for catholics. For humans? Eh...not so much.

From my first warnings about Christian-persecuting hate crimes laws in 1989, I have always told of their creator: the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Christian conservative leaders claimed this simple fact-stating was “anti-Semitic.” They preferred to blame homosexual activists. This year ADL took credit more clearly than ever. "Our legal experts pioneered hate crime laws
and work to implement them nationwide."

Hate crimes laws are unique in the history of jurisprudence because they guarantee extra punishment for bias-motivated crimes against certain minorities in a population (homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, Latinos, etc.). Such protection is not extended to whites, Christians or males. The texts of all hate crime laws worldwide promise equal protection to everyone but do not grant it. Thus, hate laws are blatantly unconstitutional in the democracies which enforce them.

How successful has ADL been in persuading the nations to adopt hate laws? Stupendously. Since Canada’s federal hate law (Sec. 319) was passed in 1971 and Britain’s Sec. 5 of the Public Order Act in 1986, more than 60 western and eastern European nations have adopted federal hate crimes legislation, all closely modeled after the pattern supplied by ADL.

This brief article summarizes the present status of hate laws in Canada, Britain and the United States. There are some glimmers of hope against the stony backdrop of hate laws’ enshrinement in most western nations.

Canada

In 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal astonishingly declared Sec. 13 of Canada’s hate law (forbidding “hate speech” on the internet) to be unconstitutional. It was repealed by Parliament’s House of Commons in June of this year. Although Senate approval is still pending, the next great push by Canadian civil liberties groups (such as Paul Fromm’s heroic “Canadian Association for Free Expression”) is repeal of the original hate law, Sec. 319.

Lovers of freedom everywhere rejoiced with recent acquittal from all hate crimes charges of Canadian pastor Stephen Boissoin. In 2002 Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the “homosexual machine” and “militant homosexual agenda.” A homosexual activist claimed his feelings were hurt and blamed Boissoin’s letter for inciting an attack on a homosexual teacher in Red Deer, Alberta. The Alberta Hate Crime Tribunal found Boissoin guilty of inciting hate and fined him $7000, to be paid to the complaining homosexual. In addition to other punishments, he was gagged from publicly commenting on homosexuality for three years. His 10-year ordeal ended when two Alberta higher courts exonerated him completely.

Britain

In Britain “harassment” (causing someone “alarm or distress” or feeling insulted) is a statutory offense. Britain’s hate law, Sec. 5 of its Public Order Act, says,

A person is guilty of an offense if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.

Popular British actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) leads popular efforts to repeal Sec. 5a. Increasing numbers of writers, comedians, political commentators, social critics and performers cannot pursue their occupations freely without fear of arrest for “insulting” someone. Evangelical Christians are especially under fire.

Sec. 5 charges are increasingly being leveled by police against conservative Christians who object to either the homosexual lifestyle or the government’s plans to institute “gay marriage.”

Adrian Smith is a Christian who recently tweeted, “If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.” Although his position is held by about 80 percent of the British population, Mr. Smith was arrested and charged under Sec. 5. His employer docked his pay 40 percent!

Lifesitenews.com says, "The campaign to reform Section 5 is drawing a surprisingly broad array of supporters. . . The campaign also claims 60 supporters in the Commons and the House of Lords including UKIP leader Nigel Farage.”

After 26 years of folly and persecution of free speech, a movement in Britain very similar to that of Canada could deal a painful blow to ADL/B’nai B’rith and a resounding victory for freedom.

United States

The good news in the U.S. is that, with Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, ADL is unable to push forward new hate laws. Their HR 975 anti-bullying bill, which would make criticism of homosexual youth in U.S. education a federal offense, has languished in committee since conservatives regained power.

The bad news is that the federal hate crimes law, passed just before Republicans came to power, is now being vigorously enforced. Sixteen cases have been tried and fifteen won by the U.S. Justice Department. A recent Kentucky case misfired for the government when three out of four alleged anti-gay hate criminals were found to be bisexual themselves.

By far the most shocking threat to freedom was this summer’s conviction of 16 Amish zealots, found guilty of the federal hate crime of forcibly cutting the hair and beards of theological rivals. Hate laws have never been enforced by governments when bias-motivated acts are between members of the same minority group. After this unprecedented judgment, Christian defendants await sentencing from 17 years to life in prison for going a step further than shunning and forcibly cutting the revered beards of their Christian antagonists. This case is especially ominous because it represents government prosecution of a fairly large group of Christians, almost the number of a small church. Anti-Christian Jewish ADL relishes the possibility of wide-scale arrests of Christians, even denominations of Christians who are judged by the government to be “haters,” “anti-Semitic,” “domestic terrorists,”“seditionists” in the war on terror. The day before conviction ADL’s Abe Foxman rejoiced in testimony before a Senate committee that enforcement of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act was going forward splendidly.

ADL and the Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center yearn for someone from the right wing in America to commit a bona fide hate crime against a person or persons of a federally protected group. In his testimony, Foxman named Wade Page, Sikh temple shooter and member of a white power rock band, as proof the government should consider the anti-Zionist and anti-Islamic right as primary sources of potential hate-motivated violence. Yet ADL and SPLC remain deeply frustrated that their “perfect shooter,” an unstable person with extensive contacts and association with established right-wing groups and media, has not yet materialized.

Meanwhile, no matter how blatant, bona fide hate crimes by members of protected groups are not prosecuted as such. The Fort Hood shooter (army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who killed 13 and wounded 29 from clear anti-American bias) was, as a Muslim, exempted from federal hate crimes prosecution. So was possibly gay activist Floyd Corkins who attacked Family Research Council offices last summer, shooting a guard in the arm and yelling disagreement with FRC’s social policies. Many other glaring examples of preferential treatment toward members of federally protected groups who commit hate crimes can be found online.

Federal and state hate laws prosecute carefully selected cases that will build legal precedent against whites, Christians, males, and members of the political right, cases authorities are almost certain to win. Each, like a brick, helps build prison walls of legal precedent against the Christian right.

Christian Conservatives avoid Jewish Hate Law Issue

Meanwhile, the religious right, largely weary of the hate law issue and its failed attempts to stem passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is content that Republicans, for the moment, withstand new ADL hate bills. But, with enforcement of the federal hate law now moving forward rapidly, the time is past when the religious right can do nothing. It is vital that the numerous legal think-tanks and advocacy groups on the right begin concerted, wide-scale efforts to persuade Congress to declare the federal hate law unconstitutional. This should be extremely simple, logically speaking, since the hate law blatantly deprives most Americans of equal protection, one of America’s most fundamental values.

It is ironic and pathetic that now, with Canada having suffered under a cruel and vindictive hate law for 42 years and Britain for 26 years, significant efforts are not being made to revoke the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The ADL/Justice Department cabal is setting up the same tyranny for America; but the Christian conservative right, from fear of the Jews who are in the middle of the hate law issue, are afraid to approach it aggressively. The only exception to such massive silence is an occasional article in Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily holding up ADL as an expert on hate crimes/anti-Semitism definitions and encouraging evangelicals to use ADL as a trusted authority! Amazingly, the religious right only becomes increasingly obsessed with what it believes is now the number one threat to freedom: radical Islam.

In protecting ADL from criticism, the religious right believes it will avoid God’s curse on those who criticize His chosen people. Actually, by protecting ADL, the right has effectively made possible passage of 45 U.S. state hate laws, the federal hate law, and many so-called “anti-bullying” hate laws, not to mention proliferation of ADL’s hate laws worldwide, an enormous curse to America and the world.
Listen to Rev. Ted Pike and Jeff Rense discuss this article and the threat to freedom posed by the federal hate crimes law:

The US Supreme Court refused to review this most blatant case of wrongful conviction. By so doing, the US Supreme Court established that the court, like the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the executive branch, is not only a servant of the police state but also a servant of Israel and supports the destruction of the Palestinians by designating aid to Palestine as an act of terrorism.

What this means for you is that your involvement in legal transactions or associations can be declared ex post facto by secret witnesses to be criminal involvements. The criminality of your past behavior can now be established, according to Downs and Manley, by “anonymous experts,” mouthpieces for the government prosecutors who cannot “be confronted or cross-examined within the meaning of the 6th Amendment.”

Downs and Manley write: “The implications are enormous. The government can now criminalize political, religious and social ideology and speech. Donating to peace groups, participating in protests, attending church, mosque or synagogue, entertaining friends, and posting material on the Internet, for example, could later be found to be illegal because of ‘associations,’ manufactured by anonymous experts, which in some way allegedly support designated terrorist organizations one has never heard of.”

The authors could have added that if the government wants to get you, all it has to do is to declare that someone or some organization somewhere in your past was connected in a vague undefined way with terrorism. The government’s assertion suffices. No proof is needed. The brainwashed jury will not protect you.

Be prepared in the next year or two for all criticism of “our freedom and democracy” government to be shut down. In Amerika, truth is about to be exterminated.

Clear and Present Danger: A List of Offenses - Prepared by Family Research Council

A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Freedom in the Military - Courtesy of Family Research Council from Thomas More Law Center on Vimeo.

Prepared by Family Research Council (frc.org)

Casey Weinstein - 2004

United States Air Force (USAF) Academy grad (1977) and attorney, Michael "Mikey" Weinstein's son, Casey, was a USAF Academy cadet at this time. Casey complained that flyers that were placed on all cadets' breakfast plates advertising Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Distribution of the flyers stopped after that. (In 2005, Mikey Weinstein founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation [MRFF], headquartered in Albuquerque, NM).[1]

Weinstein emerges as a major critic of the USAF Academy - February 19, 2005

Mikey Weinstein emerged as a critic of the Air Force Academy and appeared on Good Morning America. Weinstein warned: "What you've got is a lusty and thriving religious intolerance that is objectively manifesting itself in prejudice and discrimination and is obliterating the First Amendment, civil rights and the US Constitution." According to Weinstein one group in particular posed a risk at the Academy: "There are senior people that view evangelical Christianity at the Air Force Academy the way that you and I would view gravity. Pick up a pen and drop it and it falls on the desk. Well, it just exists, it's gravity."[2]

Air Force Superintendent General John Rosa responds - February 19, 2005

After apologetically telling the Good Morning America audience that misdeeds had taken place at the Academy, the Superintendent, General John Rosa, presciently warned of an overreaction that could threaten religious liberty.[3]

In response to critiques from Weinstein and others, the Air Force created a task force to review the religious climate at the Academy. The Air Force sent a warning about "religious respect" to all installations worldwide, and the Academy started a course, "Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People" (RSVP) that, as described by theWashington Post, made a good-faith effort to correct problems at the school. Weinstein called this effort "putting lipstick on a pig" and blamed the religious climate on "a leadership that encourages the evangelicals and tolerates bias."[4]

The Task Force found no widespread religious discrimination at the Air Force Academy.[5] However, some cadets and staff were deemed insensitive to various religious beliefs.[6] Weinstein responded by saying the Academy's religious climate is "Inquisition 2.0," and charged that evangelical Christians have "weaponized the gospel of Jesus Christ."[7]

Weinstein sues the Air Force - October 2005

Weinstein sues the USAF alleging "severe, systemic and pervasive" religious discrimination in that service.[8] In particular he objected to a statement by Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson,the Air Force's deputy chief of chaplains, in the July 12th New York Times saying, "We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched." [9]

Weinstein dismissed - October 26, 2006

Weinstein's suit is dismissed by U.S. Judge James A. Parker in Albuquerque, New Mexico, because "it contained only vague allegations that the academy is biased in favor of evangelical Christians and improperly allowed evangelizing. Parker also ruled the group of graduates making the allegations lacked legal standing to bring the claims."[10]

Christian Embassy targeted by anti-Christian group - December 2006

Weinstein asked for -- and received -- a Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General investigation of seven officers who appeared in a video for Christian Embassy ministry. The Inspector General (IG) concluded in August 2007[11] that the video was inappropriate, but Weinstein was not satisfied. After seeing the IG's report, Weinstein told Beliefnet that even though the Air Force suggested corrective actions MRFF "wanted to see courts martial."[12]In its press release MRFF also stated, "MRFF intends to file expeditiously a comprehensive Federal lawsuit that will rapaciously pursue legal remedies to the multitude of horrific Constitutional violations this DOD/IG report reveals."[13], [14]

Anti-Christian leader finds an ally in the USAF: Chief of Staff - February 2009

Early in President Obama's first term, in a major turning point for Weinstein's relationship with military leaders, he met with Air Force Chief of Staff Norton A. Schwartz. Weinstein said that Schwartz "acknowledged that there [was] a problem" regarding religious freedom in the military.[15]

Anti-Christian group praises USAF leadership - December 2009

In a sharp turnaround from the previous four years, by the end of 2009 Weinstein was praising Air Force leadership. The Academy Superintendent complimented Weinstein as well.[16]

Calling Commissioner Gordon - February 2010

As a measure of how cozy the relationship between Weinstein and the Air Force Academy Superintendent, Lt. Gen. Mike Gould, had become, Weinstein and Gould devised a secret code word to ensure that Weinstein could have instant access to Gould. "We have our own bat-signal," Weinstein boasted.[17]

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine Veteran and ordained minister was disinvited to address the National Prayer Luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C. after he spoke publicly in opposition to the Obama Administration's effort to repeal the ban on open homosexuality in the military. The invitation was revoked even though Mr. Perkins had made clear he had planned to give a devotional, non-political message.[18],[19]

International ministry leader disinvited to Pentagon - May 6, 2010

Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, and President of the international relief ministry, Samaritan's Purse, was disinvited to the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer service by the Army because of his comments about Islam. His invitation was revoked because Graham referred to Islam as an evil religion and "horrid" for its treatment of women. Graham expressed regret for the decision, but maintained his strong support for the military.[20]

Christian prayer is banned at military funerals - July 26, 2011

After going undercover, U.S. Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) confirmed that the Houston National Cemetery was preventing Christian prayers from being said at military funerals. According to Todd Starnes' report, "[Culberson] witnessed volunteer members of the honor guard from the Veterans of Foreign Wars being prohibited from using any references to God." In October 2011, the Veterans Administration (VA) settled a lawsuit filed by the Liberty Institute regarding religious freedom and free speech at the cemetery. The VA agreed to numerous terms that helped to restore prior policies there and paid $215,000 in legal fees.[21], [22]

Air Force pulls ethics course from curriculum at air base - July 27, 2011

For 20 years, an ethics training course for nuclear missile officers was conducted by a chaplain at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. It included texts from the Bible and materials related to just war theory by Saint Augustine. This course was pulled for "thorough review" by the Air Force primarily due to its use of Christian reading materials.[23]

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz issued a service-wide memo entitled, "Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion." Schwartz wrote: "Leaders at all levels must balance Constitutional protections for an individual's free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion." For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates. "Commanders ... who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartiality and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit's morale, good order and discipline." In the 9/1/11memo, Schwartz also warned commanders against open support of chaplain-run events stating that they "must refrain from appearing to officially endorse religion generally or any particular religion." He adds, "Therefore, I expect chaplains, not commanders, to notify Airmen of Chaplain Corps programs." Finally, Schwartz advises anyone who has concerns "involving the preservation of government neutrality regarding religious beliefs" to contact a military attorney.[24], [25], [26]

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the leading medical institution for the U.S.armed forces, issued an official patient and visitor policy banning Bibles. It stated, "No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."[27] In December 2011, the policy was rescinded after a political firestorm erupted in the House of Representatives.[28], [29]

Air Force Academy apologizes for its promotion of Christmas charity - November 3, 2011

Air Force Academy Commandant of Cadets, Brig. Gen. Richard Clark, called Mikey Weinstein to apologize for a Cadet Wing email that promoted Operation Christmas Child (OCC), a charity that sends toys and toiletries to millions of needy children around the world at Christmas. OCC is affiliated with Rev. Franklin Graham's, Samaritan Purse. Clark released a statement explaining the Academy's retraction of its support stating that "[u]nder orders from Air Force headquarters ... only the Chaplain Corps is responsible for advertising faith-based programs." (This incident followed the Schwartz memo by two months, see above.)[30]

Anti-Christian group threatens suit over nativity and menorah on Travis Air Force Base - December 18, 2011

The MRFF threatened to sue Travis Air Force Base (Solano County, California) for including a nativity scene and menorah in their holiday display. The MRFF claimed the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Air Force Base refused to remove the display, finding it did not violate the Constitution.[31]

The Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Military Services issued a letter to Catholic chaplains to be read to their military parishioners across the armed services. The clergy asked them to resist implementation of the HHS contraceptive and sterilization mandate in Obamacare. A similar request was made across America to civilian parishioners that Sunday. However, this request did not reach the ears of those in the Army. As a statement issued by the Archdiocese explained, the Army letter was distributed but not read publicly, after collaboration between the Archdiocese and the Secretary of the Army led to the deletion of a sentence from its text.[32] Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online observed, "So not only were chaplains told not to read the letter, but an Obama administration official edited a pastoral letter."[33]

Air Force removes "God" from unit's logo - February 7, 2012

The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers complained to the Air Force about a logo from the Rapid Capabilities Office. It used to read in Latin "Doing God's Work with Other People's Money" and was changed to "Doing Miracles with Other People's Money." Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and 35 other lawmakers sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz demanding an explanation for the removal of a non-religious reference to God. The Air Force said they would investigate. "It is most egregious," as Rep. Forbes told Fox News, "The Air Force is taking the tone that you can't even use the word 'God.'"[34]

Army General withdraws from speaking at West Point after protest for anti-Christian groups - February 8, 2012

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) launched a campaign to bar Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (USA-ret.), a founding member of the Army's Delta Force and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, from speaking at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. CAIR and MRFF said their opposition was based upon Gen. Boykin's "Islamophobic" comments.[35] Gen. Boykin voluntarily withdrew from speaking at the event, stating in an interview with OneNewsNow that the pressure on the Academy, which the Obama Administration did not resist, was overpowering.[36]

As part of a presentation on extremism at a Pennsylvania Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on extremism the instructor included "Evangelical Christianity" and "Catholicism," as examples of religious extremism. The list also included Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamophobia and the KKK. When asked where she obtained her information, she referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing fundraising powerhouse that has attempted to discredit Christian organizations. Upon learning of this incident, the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services stated it was "astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist."[37], [38]

Weinstein claims credit for cessation of Bible sales - June 12, 2012

Weinstein took credit for the Pentagon putting an end to the sale of military-themed Bibles. For example, The Marine's Bible used the Holman Christian Standard Bible as its translation and contained a "Special Prayer and Devotional Section for Marine Personnel." The cover contained a picture of the Marine Corps Seal, part of a flag blowing in the wind, and scenes of combat with a red transparent overlay. The Pentagon claimed trademark problems were to blame, but Weinstein took credit for the revocation and called the Bibles a "national security threat." Sales of such Bibles had begun during the presidential administration of George W. Bush.[39]

West Point study links pro-life groups to terrorism - November 2012

Dr. Arie Perliger of the United States Military Academy, while analyzing "right-wing extremism," compared pro-life groups to the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups. The study, titled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right,"[40] claimed that radical right-wing ideology is grounded, in part, on the principle that "since every human being is created in the image of God, it is by definition a sin to end their lives before they have been able to 'enjoy love and life of this planet,'"(p. 38). With respect to anti-abortion attacks, Perliger observes that "pro-life violence is driven by several ideological building blocks that are enhanced by religious-based convictions, i.e., fetuses are human beings created in God's image, and as such should be accorded the rights of humans from the moment of conception; any violent acts to end their lives are immoral and should be prevented," (p. 38).[41], [42]

President Obama signed H.R. 4310 ("National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013" (NDAA)) into law and issued a signing statement. He commented on an amendment to the NDAA, Section 533, which was passed to increase religious liberty protections for service members and chaplains. The President offered up these remarks indicating his intention to elevate special protection for homosexuals above religious liberty:

Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.[43]

Army removes cross and steeple from chapel - January 24, 2013 (date of news story)

The U.S. military ordered soldiers to take down a steeple and board-up the cross-shaped windows of a chapel at remote Forward Operating Base Orgun-E in Afghanistan. The soldiers were required to keep the chapel religiously neutral. In 2011, a similar situation occurred where soldiers were forced to remove a cross at a chapel at Camp Marmal, Afghanistan.[44], [45]

Utah airmen is reprimanded and his reenlistment contract terminated for objecting to a gay marriage in the West Point Chapel - February 10, 2013

A 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard, TSgt. Layne Wilson, was reprimanded after sending an e-mail on December 2, 2012, to what he believed was the chaplain's office at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Wilson expressed disagreement with the performance of a same-sex marriage in the Cadet Chapel. At the time, the Defense of Marriage Act was still federal law. Instead of responding privately to Wilson, the Commandant of Cadets notified the Utah Air National Guard. Wilson was told via email from Lt. Col. Kevin Tobias, "You are herby reprimanded. As a noncommissioned officer you are expected to maintain a standard of professional and personal behavior that is above reproach. You have failed!" The Air National Guard also terminated his signed, six-year reenlistment contract; instead, Layne received only a one-year extension. However, after his attorney objected, his six-year contract was reinstated, but a June 19 memo left the reprimand in place.[46], [47]

Todd Starnes of Fox News revealed an internal e-mail from an Army Lt. Colonel at Fort Campbell, KY (home of 101st Airborne Div.), advising three dozen subordinates to be on the lookout for soldiers who might be members of "domestic hate groups." Family Research Council was listed as an "Anti-Gay" group along with American Family Association. While commenting about the groups that were singled out, the e-mail warned that they, "do not share our Army Values."[48]

Weinstein meets with top Air Force officials at the Pentagon - April 23, 2013

Three representatives of MRFF (Mikey Weinstein, Larry Wilkerson [former chief of staff to Colin Powell], and Ambassador Joe Wilson [husband of Valerie Plame]) met with several high-ranking Air Force officials along with USAF staff members to hear various complaints about military life and religious observance. Weinstein told Sally Quinn (Washington Post) in an interview after the Pentagon meeting that Christian "proselytizing" is a "national security threat." He added, "What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is a spiritual rape.... it is sedition and treason. It should be punished." Quinn noted that the three men were speaking of proselytizing by "'dominionist' or fundamentalist evangelical Christians."[49]

Sally Quinn, long-time columnist, reported that the "Air Force published, but has yet to distribute, a 27-page document, which includes a cover sheet that states: 'COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY.'" Quinn was referring to manual AFI 1-1 (see below, May 2013) that made a number of potentially troubling statements regarding the free exercise of religion. For example, it condemned not just the "actual" but also the "apparent" use of one's position to promote one's religious beliefs. It also indicated noncompliance could result in court martial." Weinstein observed to Quinn: "You need a half a dozen court-martials real quick."[50]

After Weinstein meeting, Pentagon confirms policy - April 30, 2013

The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations. In a written statement to Fox News, Lt. Commander Nate Christensen said, "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense." He declined to say if anyone had been prosecuted due to this policy.[51]

Air Force officer told to remove Bible from desk - May 2, 2013

Air Force person nel had been told that they might express their beliefs as long as they do not "make others uncomfortable." This rule led to an officer being asked to remove a copy of the Bible from his desk. According to the Fox News report the "officer was told he could no longer keep a Bible on his desk because it '[might]' appear that he was condoning a particular religion."[52]

Air Force statement - May 2, 2013

"When on duty or in an official capacity, Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable.... Proselytizing (inducing someone to convert to one's faith) goes over that line." - Lt. Col. Laurel Tingley, in a statement to Fox News[53]

Department of Defense statement - May 2, 2013

"The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution.... Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization)."[54]

Coast Guard Rear Admiral speaks at National Day of Prayer event - May 2, 2013

Coast Guard Rear Admiral William Lee spoke at a National Day of Prayer event as "a man of deep abiding faith who happens to wear a uniform." Lee addressed the issue of religious freedom in the military describing an occasion on which he gave a Bible to a Coast Guardsman who tried to commit suicide. "The lawyers tell me that if I do that, I'm crossing the line," Lee said. "I'm so glad I've crossed that line so many times."[55]

Air Force releases AFI 1-1 - May 2013

The Air Force manual "Air Force Instruction 1-1" (AFI 1-1) was internally released in August 2012 but distribution to all airmen as a paper pocket copy started in May 2013. Section 2.11, "Government Neutrality Regarding Religion," contains language consonant with Mikey Weinstein's comments after his April 23rd meeting at the Pentagon with high-ranking USAF officials.[56], [57]

A painting including a Bible verse is removed - May 31, 2013

Weinstein complained to the Pentagon about an inspirational painting in the dining hall of Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. It focused on a depiction of a policeman and included a Scripture citation and the image of a cross. The painting was reportedly removed 56 minutes later.[58]

A soldier is punished for serving Chick-fil-A - June 5, 2013

Army Master Sergeant, Nathan Sommers, was punished for serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at his own promotion party in honor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Sommers was investigated, reprimanded, threatened with judicial action, and given a bad efficiency report. The invitation said, "In honor of my promotion and in honor of the Defense of Marriage Act, I'm serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at my promotion party." Sommers was told that "he [was] no longer a team player and was not performing up to standards." Chick-fil-A and DOMA were frowned upon.[59]

Fleming Amendment is adopted - June 5, 2013

The House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Fleming Amendment protects the rights of armed services members to hold, act upon, and practice freely their religious beliefs as long as they do not interfere with any Constitutional liberties of others.[60], [61]

Air Force removes video that mentions God - June 7, 2013

The Pentagon directed the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, in Trenton, New Jersey, to take down a video that mentioned "God" because it might be offensive. It read: "On the eighth day, God looked down on His creation and said, 'I need someone who will take care of the Airmen.' So God created a First Sergeant." The video was modeled after a Super Bowl commercial and clearly was made to honor First Sergeants. "Proliferation [sic] of religion is not allowed in the Air Force or military." The chief of the Air Force News Service Division questioned how "an Agnostic, Atheist or Muslim serving in the military [would] take this video," and recommended not using it at all.[62]

On June 11th, after the House Armed Services Committee approved its version of the NDAA (H.R.1960) with Rep. Fleming's language, a White House Statement of Administration Policy was issued indicating that the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto because they strongly object "to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, 'actions and speech' reflecting the 'conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member,'...[and which] would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment."[63], [64], [65]

FRC was told by Senate Republicans that the Senate Armed Services Committee included language similar to the H.R. 1960 protections in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill was passed out of Committee on June 13, 2013.[66]

Chaplain's is ordered to remove a religion-themed essay from USAF base website - July 24, 2013

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes, a chaplain at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Alaska, was told to remove a religious essay that he posted on the base website. The essay was entitled, "No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave all in World War II" referring to a comment made by Father William Cummings, a Catholic priest, who observed that there "[t]here is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole." President Eisenhower repeated the phrase during a speech to the American Legion in 1954. Mikey Weinstein's MRFF sent a demand letter to JBER's commander, Col. Brian P. Duffy, claiming to represent 42 anonymous service members assigned there who were offended by the post. MRFF claimed, "through redundant use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, 'no atheists in foxholes,' he defiles the dignity of service members." The essay was taken down within five hours of receipt of the complaint. MRFF wanted the chaplain to be reprimanded. However, Col. Reyes' article was restored to the base website in mid-August with a disclaimer placed on the site.[67], [68], [69], [70]

An Army assistant chaplain is threatened for sharing her Biblical beliefs on homosexuality via Facebook - August 6, 2013

An Army chaplain's assistant, stationed near Colorado Springs, Coloradowas ordered to remove a Facebook post or face disciplinary action including, possibly, a reduction in rank and pay. One Sunday evening, the airman was listening to a pastor endorse homosexuality. Afterward, she posted on her Facebook page her frustrations with pastors endorsing homosexuality and denying it to be a sin. Her commander called her into his office on Monday and ask that she remove the post because it created a "hostile and antagonistic" environment. Intense pressure was placed upon her after her pastor, Todd Hudnall (Radiant Church), made the Army's actions known to the public. She removed this posting to her personal Facebook page.[71], [72]

Drag queen group performs at Air Force Base LGBT Diversity Day - August 8, 2013

A "Diversity Day" celebration at the Los Angeles Air Force Base featured eight cultural presentations including a well-known drag queen group ("Jules and the Brunchettes"). USAF spokesperson, Peggy Hodge, stated, "Drag acts to this day represent the struggle for freedom and equality of the LGBT community, while at the same time providing a deep-rooted historical form of entertainment for the LGBT culture." She added that such performers hearken back to the Stonewall Riots, the beginning of the gay rights movement. They are a "symbol of gay pride and unity." Starnes wrote, "In addition to the drag queens, there were performances by an Irish dance troupe, a Polynesian entertainment group, Japanese drummers, Native American dancers, Hispanic folk music, and cloggers."[73]

A Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request produced Department of Defense (DOD) anti-discrimination training materials implying that some conservative organizations are "hate groups." Students were told to be aware that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." The documents repeatedly cited the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource for identifying "hate groups." One document suggested that the American colonists who rebelled against British rule were members of an "extremist movement."[74]

Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk is relieved of duties over gay marriage - June 25, 2013; files complaint - August 20, 2013; is given a Miranda warning by Air Force investigator - August 27, 2013

A 19-year veteran of the Air Force, Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, was relieved of his duties after he disagreed with his openly gay commander, Maj. Elisa Valenzuela, when she wanted to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality. Valenzuela incorrectly told Monk that opposition to same-sex marriage constituted discrimination. Monk disagreed. Valenzuela relieved Monk of his duties as First Sergeant for the unit. Monk was also placed on restricted liberty and was no longer permitted to be physically present in the unit's buildings or facilities located at Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX. News of these events broke around mid-August 2013, and Monk filed a formal complaint against Valenzuela on August 20, 2013. In an August 27, 2013 meeting with an Air Force investigator, Sgt. Monk and his attorney, Michael Berry (Liberty Institute), were told that Monk is under investigation criminally for violating Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) -- making a false official statement. Monk was read his Miranda rights at that time. This step was puzzling because Monk had made no official comments on this matter-an essential element of an Article 107 violation. The Air Force action appeared to be retaliation for Monk's discrimination filing against Major Valenzuela.[75], [76], [77], [78], [79]

Naval Base Chaplain is threatened with arrest for offering religious services after being furloughed during government shutdown - October 4, 2013

Fr. Ray Leonard, a contract Catholic military chaplain at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia was furloughed in the wake of the government shutdown. Subsequently, when he offered to continue to provide religious services on a volunteer basis, he was threatened with arrest. The threat of arrest extended to entering his on base office or visiting the on base chapel. The subsequent lawsuit, filed by the Thomas More Law Center, is pending.

In closing:

James Madison once described religious freedom as the "lustre of our country." The examples presented above should give us great concern that we have entered a period in which members of the armed services are being subjected to speech codes and restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We recognize that there must be a healthy respect for the beliefs of members of all faiths and those who are not Christian believers. Concurrently, we affirm that religious expression is a right foundational to our Constitution, which those being penalized have sworn with their lives to uphold.

Professor Monroe Freedman of Hofstra University died last week, and the irony is, I wouldn’t have known about it had I not been scouring Google in an attempt to kill a rapidly-spreading phony Internet meme that indirectly pertained to his work.

Freedman was a well-known figure, and an occasional pen-pal of mine. My ignorance of his death came not from lack of public in memoriams, but rather from the fact that I just don’t get around much anymore. The man who once pole-danced half-naked as a clown now finds plenty of excitement in uncapping his bottle of heart meds without getting an aneurysm (I speak of myself here, not Prof. Freedman, whose pole dancing routine was always performed fully-clothed).

Freedman was the first executive director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. He was dean of Hofstra’s law school. As a lawyer, he was a self-described ambulance chaser (“I believe that there is a professional responsibility on the part of lawyers to chase ambulances” he told “60 Minutes” in 1994), and a vocal proponent of the responsibility of defense attorneys to fight vigorously for their clients (for better or worse, Freedman defined “vigorous defense” as “remain silent if you know your client is about to lie on the stand”). In the 1970s, he successfully lobbied the ABA to lift its ban on allowing lawyers to advertise (“Monroe Freedman got me 2.1 million dollars!”). Alan Dershowitz said of Freedman, “He invented legal ethics as a serious academic subject.”

“When the anti-“hate speech” law comes, it won’t come in the form of a foaming-at-the-mouth, purposely over-the-top caricature created by an Internet troll.”
Yawn. I’m already bored by this piece, and I’m writing the damn thing.

So here’s where it (hopefully) gets interesting. Freedman may be gone, but his ghost lingers in more than just the tacky 1-800 lawyer commercials fat people see while watching Judge Judy. Back in 1988, Monroe Freedman hatched an idea: Would it be possible to draft a constitutionally-acceptable law banning speech that offends racial, religious, and ethnic minorities? A law that would restrict “hate speech” in general, and Holocaust revisionism specifically.

Could it be done?

In a December 2003 email, Freedman told me he undertook the effort mainly because people told him it was impossible. No anti-“hate speech” statute would pass muster with the high court. Freedman’s answer was, “not now, maybe. But the court changes with its justices.”

So, back in November 1987, Freedman put the word out. He established a reward offer ($1,200, or about $3,000 in today’s dollars) for the law student who could draft what he was looking for. This notice went to law schools around the country:

“We are looking for a model statute outlawing group defamation, that is, one that would permit prior restraint by public officials of speech that is defamatory of any minority group. The statute should be as broad as the drafters conclude is constitutionally permissible or, at least, arguably permissible; at the same time, it should include whatever limitations or conditions are considered essential to satisfy constitutional requirements.”

At a conference in April 1988, a “model statute” was selected, written for Freedman by then-law student Joseph Ribakoff (who has since been disbarred for a variety of criminal offences). The statute was tested in a moot court with Columbia Law School Vice Dean (and former Director-Counsel of the NAACP) Jack Greenberg acting as prosecutor, and Alan Dershowitz acting for the defense. The judges were Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Amalya Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The statute was upheld in moot court. It passed the test, just as Freedman had hoped.

And there the statute has been ever since, sitting at Hofstra Law School. Freedman let me have the audio tapes of the entire conference (I believe I’m the only one outside Hofstra to have copies).

I bring all of this up because last week a meme nearly went viral regarding a phony blog post on the Times of Israel site. A troll of some type had created a fictitious persona (“Dinah Silverstein the human rights activist”) and pilfered the profile photo of The Guardian’s Nancy Goldstein. In a blog titled “America Desperately Needs a Hate Speech Law,” the nonexistent “Dinah” launched an obscenely over-the-top, insult-ridden, somewhat libelous rant about the need for a law to lock up all racists, sexists, homophobes, ageists, “ableists,” and Islamophobes.

Of course, there is no “Dinah Silverstein,” and the troll’s pseudonymous blog was soon pulled because, wouldn’t you know it, The Guardian copyrights the photos of its authors (and the Times of Israel strictly prohibits the unauthorized use of copyrighted material).

For 24 hours, the “Dinah” rant was on the verge of going viral, until it was killed. And good. We don’t need to become distracted by performance art. When the anti-“hate speech” law comes, it won’t come in the form of a foaming-at-the-mouth, purposely over-the-top caricature created by an Internet troll. It’ll come from the likes of Monroe Freedman. It will be his law, written, as it is, coldly, dispassionately, and engineered to pass muster with a high court that has just a few more Sotomayors and Kagans on it.

Since 1988, Freedman’s model statute has influenced countless European anti-speech laws with its unique concept of “group defamation.” In the U.S., it’s dormant at the moment. I doubt it will remain so forever. Think of it as lurking in the shadows, waiting for its moment. Read the statute for yourself, understand the ramifications of what it’s intended to do to our most basic, fundamental freedom, and remember Lucius’ admonition in Titus Andronicus: “This is our doom.”

Pennsylvania university expels three students for racist comments on radio
Reuters By Elizabeth Daley
March 31, 2015 7:05 PM

By Elizabeth Daley

PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - Three students have been expelled from Pennsylvania's Bucknell University for racist language and comments on the school's student-run radio station, university officials said on Tuesday.

Their conduct was "a clear violation of our community standards," President John Bravman said in an email to staff and students late on Monday.

One of the students used a derogatory term for black people, another said: "Black people should be dead," and a third said: "Lynch 'em" during a March 20 broadcast on WVBU, Bucknell's student-run radio station, Bravman said in his email.

The expulsions were among several recent moves by U.S. colleges and universities to deal with racism on campus.

About 3,600 students attend Bucknell, located in the central Pennsylvania town of Lewisburg.

The Bucknell radio broadcast was heard by a local prison inmate, who contacted the Lewisburg Prison Project.

Dave Sprout, a paralegal at the inmate support organization, said he contacted Bucknell, and school officials reviewed tapes of the broadcast.

Sprout said the federal penitentiary in Lewisburg had more than 1,300 inmates, many of whom listen to Bucknell's radio station.

"Racism exists on campuses across the country and, in fact, throughout society," Bucknell's president wrote in his email. "We need to look no further than recent news headlines to see that."

Connecticut College canceled all classes on Monday to hold campus-wide counseling and discussions after an offensive posting was found on a professor's Facebook page and racist graffiti in a restroom.

Earlier in March, two fraternity members were caught on video chanting a racist song at the University of Oklahoma. They were expelled and the fraternity house was shut down.

KASSAM: POTUS Signs ‘Anti-Hate’ Resolution, a Major Assault on America’s First Amendment

by RAHEEM KASSAM 15 Sep 2017

DACA wasn’t the biggest win for the swamp-left this week.

Blink and you’ll have missed it. In amongst the furore over immigration, news coverage of Hurricane fallout, and North Korea’s latest tub thumping, President Trump signed that anti-free speech resolution I warned about just a few days ago.

The Associated Press reports:

President Donald Trump has signed a resolution condemning white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other hate groups following a white-nationalist rally in Virginia that descended into deadly violence.

The resolution also urged Trump and his administration to speak out against hate groups that espouse racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy.

That’s not entirely accurate. In fact it’s a pretty thoughtless and likely intentional misinterpretation of the breadth of this resolution and its real world implications.

As I’ve already pointed out, the resolution expresses “support for the Charlottesville community”, which is great, but then demands the President rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups” and urges him and his cabinet to “use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups”.

Were it simply this symbolic, I wouldn’t be banging on about it. Were epithets like “white nationalist” or “white supremacist” not used against people like me, and sites like Breitbart.com, it may be excusable — and mockable — as simple virtue signaling.

But it’s not just symbolic.

The resolution demands “the President and the President’s Cabinet… use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups” and requires “the heads of other Federal agencies… improve the reporting of hate crimes and… emphasize the importance of the collection, and… reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of hate crime data by State and local agencies”.

As egregious and disgusting as many of the groups mentioned are, this is still — last time I checked — the United States of America. The only country that has enshrined in law its commitment to defending people’s rights to say whatever they want, no matter how nasty, depraved, absurd, or “deplorable”.

It is also telling that after months of hurling these labels at people like you and I — and indeed at the President himself — the establishment is now demanding President Trump “use all available resources to address the threats”.

This isn’t just an attack on the KKK and fringe groups. It’s a veiled attack on anything the establishment considers to be a threat to its long-standing though swiftly diminishing hegemony over the political discourse in this country. If you’re on the political left — especially if you’re a Bernie supporter — don’t think they won’t try and apply this to you, too. This is real fascism.

As I said recently of the intentionally vague and sometimes meaningless terminology used in the resolution:

Today, a “racist” is someone who believes in legal immigration. An “extremist” is someone who doesn’t believe in mass, state-funded abortion. A “xenophobe” is someone who takes pride in their nation. An “anti-Semite” is — curiously — someone who supports the State of Israel, and “white supremacy” now occupies the Oval Office. The Overton window has shifted so far that even practicing Muslims are now decried by the most heavily quoted sources as “Islamophobes”.

Last night the President signed this.

While I have no truck with ethno-nationalists or the KKK, this is an obvious ruse — the first move in a long attempt to criminalise speech, or even thought, in the United States.

Ask yourself why when there are hurricanes, when there’s North Korea, when there’s international terrorism, when there’s the DACA debate, the President was being urged to sign this resolution right now.

Why the priority if its only symbolic? Why the loose language?

This is a heinous betrayal, and the fact no one seems to care about it is even more concerning.

While I have no truck with ethno-nationalists or the KKK, this is an obvious ruse — the first move in a long attempt to criminalise speech, or even thought, in the United States.

Ask yourself why when there are hurricanes, when there’s North Korea, when there’s international terrorism, when there’s the DACA debate, the President was being urged to sign this resolution right now.

Why the priority if its only symbolic? Why the loose language?

This is a heinous betrayal, and the fact no one seems to care about it is even more concerning.